Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely.
This publishes Sunday through Thursday with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).

The Council
on State Taxation issued its triennial brief on tax administration in the
states, where Louisiana bucked its recent trend of improving performance in
the area of economic development by coming in dead last, tied with perennial
economic growth-unfriendly California. Its “Scorecard on Tax Appeals &
Procedural Requirements” grades along the assumption that, as the system for
tax collection largely functions through voluntary compliance, practices that
encourage this and make it easier produce a competitive advantage relative to
non-adopters of such.

The report notes that Louisiana
has significant aspects that tend to weigh the system against the filer in
favor of the state, makes it more difficult to stay informed about complexities
of the code, is needlessly complex, and creates extra costs. Tellingly, its
worst category score was in the area of other issues, which were related to
complexities and costs involved when disputes arose.

In part, that category found
minor addressing in the reform legislation, in its proposal
to create a dedicated state tax court. This would have streamlined
operations by disputants avoiding their having to go to state district courts
for relief, as well as could have saved on and facilitated appeals as what got
proposed would have sidestepped the bonding requirement to have a case on a
court’s docket. But when the remainder of the plan that would have swapped lower
rates for fewer deductions got junked for lack of groundswell in favor among
the public and legislators, so did this item.

That one should be resurrected, and
to it added several others. Establishing this court in fact would be the only
reform that would have anything beyond trivial costs. Based upon the report,
these should include

loosening Department of Revenue
controls over whether cases can get appealed to the state’s Board of Tax
Appeals

eliminating any bonding
requirements to have an appeal heard

lengthening the length of time to
protest an assessment from 30 days to at least 45 days

allowing for automatic extension for
payment rather than only upon taxpayer request

stopping the forcing of taxpayers
that dispute to pay up to 10 percent of amount collected in attorney’s fees
compounded by allowing the jurisdiction to pay outside counsel on a contingency
basis

These changes especially need to
be made because the state is just one of three that has entirely local
jurisdictions for assessment and collection. It’s bad enough that the state
administrative processes of DOR appeal control and lack of transparency hamper
the ability of filers to get a fair deal, but consider the impediments to the
protest and appeal processes and then multiply them by 64 to realize it’s
nightmarish for an entity that has business statewide. If the state is not
going to go to a centralized collection mechanism, a highly beneficial
simplification but which would require amending the Constitution, then the
least lawmakers can do is pass a statute to change these others aspects to
smooth operations and to increase taxpayer rights across the highly duplicative
system.

Little of this bureaucratic
agenda packs political drama that catches headlines, but its enactment certainly
would ease compliance costs and enhance the state’s reputation for business
friendliness. That attracts capital and creates jobs and thus puts lucre into
the state’s coffers. Legislation along these lines, which would entail no tax
rate nor exceptions changes, should get introduced and passed during the 2014
session.

About Me

Subscribe To

Comment publishing requirements

You must be a registered user with an OpenID-compliant service to leave comments, which will be moderated. Any comments that do not address issues in the post for which they are intended will not be posted; neither will those that utterly lack intellectual coherence.